For ten years Dem politicians and their supporters in the media and elsewhere have employed a myriad of means, some illegal, to hamper Donald Trump’s presidency. For example, they spread false and malicious rumors that he was a puppet of the Russians; they impeached him twice on “trumped up” charges; they indicted him for fake crimes; they tried to imprison him; they tried to bankrupt him; and they tried to incite violence against him by continually call him “Hitler,”, “Nazi,” “evil,” and an “existential threat to democracy.”
As I have explained in previous blogs each of these tactics was ultimately exposed to be mendacious with evil intent. Now the Dems are so desperate they have outdone themselves. Recently, several lawmakers, including Sen. Elissa Slotkin of MI, Sen. Mark Kelly of AZ and Reps. Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania and Jason Crow of Colorado all of whom have served in the military or the intelligence community and should know better, released a video containing a message that, in my view, advocates insurrection.
It advises national guardsmen and military personnel that they may and, in fact, should disobey any order that they deem to be illegal. Their message stated, in part, “our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” they said, taking turns delivering virtually identical lines as if from a prepared script. So, in their opinion, if an enlisted person were to disagree with a lawful order by a superior officer to enforce one of President Trump’s policies for instance to engage an enemy combatant or detain illegal immigrants who are wreaking havoc in a US city he can and should disobey it. To me, that is a clear attempt to incite insurrection.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution states, in part, that “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States…” It defines insurrection as a violent uprising against an authority or government. For example, the IA empowers the president to deploy federal troops and/or to federalize the National Guard units of the individual states in specific circumstances, including, among other things, the suppression of “civil disorder.” Persons attacking ICE personnel who are enforcing federal law, such as we have been witnessing on tv is a classic instance of “civil disorder.” In my opinion, inciting insurrection by words or deeds is a clear violation of that law. There is no ambiguity. We cannot have privates debating the merit of lawful orders with lieutenants in the heat of battle. (We are not talking about orders, for example, to torture a non-combatant.)
I maintain that the Justice Department should prosecute those people in accordance with the Insurrection Act of 1807 and/or other applicable laws. Otherwise, we risk anarchy or an attempted coup, (which is probably what these insurrectionists want). Certain Dems have made it clear that they oppose Trump’s military deployment in various cities. The Trump administration sharply criticized their communique.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said those Dem lawmakers are “openly calling for insurrection.” Many people, including me, agree. Attorney General Pam Bondi averred on Fox News that the DOJ would be investigating. I hope it follows through and metes out appropriate punishment to the inciters.
The deployment of federal troops to deal with local criminal matters is not unique. “Well, it’s been invoked before,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. He’s correct. It has been many times, for example, in southern states in the 1950s to enforce civil rights and in various cities in the 1960s to suppress anti-war violence. Trump has asserted that troops are needed now to protect federal property and personnel in carrying out their lawful duties, as well as assisting in an overall drive to round up and deport illegal aliens and suppress crime.
In other related news:
- Reuters has reported that a federal judge has temporarily barred Guard troops from heading to Portland, Oregon. I expect that this outlier ruling will be overturned on appeal as others have in the past.
- In a separate, but similar ruling another judge has allowed for now a deployment to proceed in Chicago, where federal agents have embarked on a sweeping crackdown regarding illegal immigration. Illinois Governor Pritzker has been a constant critic of the deployment of federal troops in Chicago. This is ironic as Chicago has one of the highest crime rates and murder rates in the country. It’s obvious that federal assistance is needed there desperately, and Pritzker cares more about opposing Trump than the safety of his own citizens. Meanwhile, people are dying. President Trump has characterized Chicago as “a great city where there’s a lot of crime, and if the governor can’t do the job, we’ll do the job. It’s all very simple,”
CONCLUSION
Many liberal/progressive/socialist/communist commentators have tried to poo-poo this incident, but you know if a Republican had said the same thing about a Dem Administration multiple law enforcement agencies would have raided his house en masse at 3:00 AM with tv cameras at the ready to record it. This cannot be swept under the rug. An example must be made to forestall similar incitements prospectively.
